Last week, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, or GMCA, under the Housing Portfolio Lead of Salford City Mayor, Paul Dennett, handed out £41.441million of Government Tranche 2 Brownfield Housing Fund money to various developers across the region to build 2,720 units of housing.
Salford's cut was £7.495million, broken down as follows...
Central Salford - E6 Chapel St, 100 units £1.5m
Longshaw Drive, Little Hulton, 177 units, £2.939m
Land at Kara Street, Harmsworth Street, Nansen Street and Iceland Street Salford, M6, 66 units, £683k
St Lukes, Weaste, 45 units, £710k
HRA sites - Clifton/Ordsall sites 104 units £1.663m
...And no other information was given, apart from the criteria for winning the funding (Deliverability 30%/Value for money 30% and Strategic Fit 40% [which included deprivation]) with an average of £13,310 subsidy per unit of housing.
The Salford Star asked the GMCA for more information how many of the units are affordable? Which developers are getting the funding and for which developments? The GMCA couldn't answer as "the information is held by each council and we cannot comment on their behalf"...
The GMCA referred the query back to Salford Council which, of course, does not respond to any questions or requests for comments from the Salford Star. So this public money is being given away with zero accountability, and probably zero scrutiny if councillors on Greater Manchester committees only had the above information.
Obviously, information is known about some of the sites for instance £1.5million subsidy at E6 Chapel Street will be for the next tranche of unaffordable, ridiculously expensive properties courtesy of the English Cities Fund, which has already had huge subsidies from public money, while all Section 106 payments have been waived in favour of a secret Development Fund that sees ECF subsidising itself, cheered on by Salford Council (see here).
The land in Langworthy, Kara Street et al, will have only 17 social rent units out of 157 units, bought back off Salix Homes by Salford Council, but the GMCA funding is for 66 units why? The funding of £1.663million for the Clifton and Ordsall sites (no other info) might possibly have some affordable housing...and at St Lukes, Weaste, there's a £710,000 subsidy for 45 units, of which there is no information available at all.
Meanwhile there's a £2.939million subsidy for a development of 177 units at Longshaw Drive, Little Hulton, of which just 46 will be for social rent. Here, Salford Council owns the land, Salford Council has put in the planning application, and Salford Council's Mayor has awarded the subsidy.
This lack of information, accountability and transparency is not only shocking but endemic within Salford City Council, and now, it seems, GMCA, led by Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham.
Tomorrow, Salford Council's Planning Panel will discuss a planning application for two huge blocks of 336 apartments, up to 24 storeys, at the site of Custom and Furness House at Salford Quays.
"In line with the planning obligation SPD, obligations in respect of open space, public realm, transport and affordable housing are considered necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development" states the officer report on the application.
The developer originally offered to pay just £200,000 for all this but will now cough up £1,792,104 plus a clawback mechanism should the development produce bumper profits. It seems like a good deal, but is it?
There are no details, but the Star has calculated that there there should be 20% affordable housing on the site 66 units, which is already making the £1.7million figure look small (although Vacant Building Credits are being used to offset affordable housing requirements), plus Open Space contributions should be another £676,104, and then there's Public Realm and Transport payments which are usually negotiated.
In the distant past, Salford Council officers used to break down the Section 106 payment figures, whether the developers were paying them or not, but now they just give a round figure and no-one, particularly the councillors making the decisions, knows whether it's a good deal for the city or not. It's just another transparency bypass. As is the failed promise that developers' viability assessment reports would be published.
The question arises whether it matters or not, or whether we should just trust our 'sensible socialist' council to do the best for Salford citizens. Except that if the Best Value Inspection report into what happened at Liverpool Council is read, what it calls "corporate blindness" and a culture of "rule avoidance" can be a dangerous thing.
The report, separate from the Merseyside Police investigation, focuses on land deals and Section 106 payments, and while, hopefully, what is happening in Salford is not in the same league as what appears to have gone on in Liverpool, there are pointers...
The report states that "the loss of s106 income (not paid by developers) to support the developments proposed went unchecked", while it also looked into 'serious failings' with regard to land disposals. The inspectors particularly looked into planning, highways, regeneration, property management and "the strength of associated audit and governance arrangements in the exercise of those specified functions"...and found them wanting.
"The Inspection uncovered major gaps in what would be normal documentary evidence to support the decisions and actions of LCC [Liverpool City Council] at both Member and Officer level" the report concludes "In the functions subject to the Inspection, compliance with LCC's Standing Orders, regulations and the overriding legislation was clearly not part of the culture of the organisation."
The complete lack of detail, transparency and accountability in many decisions by Salford Council (see above) needs to be urgently considered...
To read the full Best Value Inspection report for Liverpool City Council click here
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
